My co-worker and I looked at it yesterday. For all the controversy, the sad thing is, his issue truly reflects how most people in power feel about women in this industry.
I am too busy to go off on this piece of boring bullshit. I think I can sum it up by saying, good for Rachel McAdams. I find it very interesting that when Eric Bana (who is not that well know to the general public) was uncomfortable with Ford's concept, it was changed. When Rachel who stared in 4 hits (in different genres), was uncomfortable she was no longer on the cover and not even in the magazine. She is one of the few up and coming actresses who is acknowleged as not just pretty but also very talented. I guess that means nothing because she wouldn't take her clothes off.
Nudity in art can be really beautiful, powerful or provocative, sometimes all at the same time. It's like VF only went for provocative so there is nothing artistic about the overall theme of this issue. I actually like Sienna's picture but what is up with the theme of naked female body parts juxtaposed to clothed men. Please stop with the "oh but he's gay". Just because a man is gay doesn't mean he is automatically more "female friendly" then a straight man. That is a stereotype. Some of the most sexist men I have met in my life were gay.
If Tom wanted to put peole in the issue that were fresh, why is Jennifer Aniston in it? She is constantly on the newstand covers. He says that Hollywood is made of artists and craftmen, where are they?
Mr. Carter in his editor's letters has been bashing Bush for years, mainly for being shallow. Hello, does Carter read his magazine? Oh right, that great philosopher of our times (THAT'S HOT!!) Ms. Hilton, was on the cover a couple issues ago. Having an article on the Sudan and other important topics once in a while doesn't take away VF's sad attempt to compete with Life and Style. It's not working, circulation is still down. I stopped my subscription a couple years ago and don't buy it the newstand. I actually miss Tina Brown.